festizzio said:
Sounds like not rotating at all is what would sound inconsistent, given how the game has rotated out sets in the past
Above sentence makes more sense than anything, and I believe Pokemon changed the way they rotate sets forever with last year's "un"-rotation, so using examples of the formats before it is a weak argument towards an RR-on format.
if anyting, I would call last year's (non)rotation just a band-aid on a previous year's rotation...the year prior to the DP-on rotation, when it was no longer Deoxys-on, which was a rotation that the Japanese did not have (they didn't rotate until there was enough DP sets to rotate to and still have a good metagame)
the quote you posted and answered to here, was in response to something you were saying about the "mathematical theory" of the amount sets that will be rotated and mentioned something about inconsistency...so I rebutted with figures from previous rotations
festizzio said:
Nothing anybody is saying has any solid evidence, it's all just conjecture and logic. PT-on seems logical to us because it's the first set of a block and it has vital SP support. RR-on seems logical to you because otherwise SPs would be far too powerful and would easily destroy any stage 2 deck (which I disagree with; Spiritomb is fantastic).
of course nobody has solid evidence, because those that would, would have some serious penalties if they were to provide said evidence...but what can be done, which is what this thread is meant for, is to discuss the possible rotation and theories behind that rotation...and yes, Spiritomb is fantastic, but is easily tech'd around, it doesn't take much to move it from the active spot so that you can continue on and use trainers, but yes...it does help
festizzio said:
so far, the argument that I've heard the most is about how a PT-on rotation would make the most sense, and how any other rotation prediction make none...yet, all of this is said with little to no evidence that actually points to reasons as to why and back up how much a PT-on rotation makes more sense, while others do not...c'mon guys, put at least a lil' effort into proving your points
Implying that we don't challenge you with any arguments while yours are seemingly infallible is simply a delusion. Whatever happens, happens, and no amount of arguing is going to change that. For now I say we just agree to disagree, because nobody is gaining any ground with the other side.
whoa...calm down there bud...actually, there wasn't any implification of challenge to begin with...what I was implying, was that so far, there hasn't been much talk of anything to support the PT-on rotation out of people saying it's the beginning of the block...I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything really, except for the fact that I think my rotation prediction has merit...but when someone comes and challenges my prediction, I will state what lead me to make my prediction in detail...and then expect their reason that lead to their prediction (or reason to believe anyone else's prediction) in detail...but just saying because it's the start of the block isn't detail...I'll explain why, later
festizzio said:
Do you actually have a source showing that the reason there was no rotation last year is because of the SPs overrunning the format and Claydol being rotated or are you just conjecturing? Lots of assumptions do not make a very strong argument. Also, saying something as vague as the title font of the sets supports the supposed rotation that never happened is just wishful thinking. I don't see any evidence for your arguments other than what you seem to believe, but supporting your beliefs with other beliefs is a big no-no. It's exactly what those of us arguing for a PT-on format are doing, so you can debate all you want but neither side has sufficient evidence for their beliefs other than their own beliefs, which is a fallacy.
while, I don't exactly agree with his rotation explanation...I do believe that what he was trying to say by the opening statement...is that if all you have as your support for the PT-on rotation, is that it's the beginning of a block...then, it holds little weight...this quote here, is one of the reasons why
and why would it make more sense, just because it's a block? this isn't MTG, the blocks that pokemon has doesn't have the same number of sets within each block...if that was the case, I would probably agree...however, DP had 7 sets...PT had 4...so you're saying that they should rotate 7 sets this year, and then rotate 4 sets the next year...without even knowing how many sets that our current block will have, and how many sets our future block will have...there's no telling how many sets that would leave after the next year's rotation
festizzio said:
Either side is never going to convince the other that they are correct, for reasons stated above. It is because of this that this topic could literally go on forever (at least until the rotation is announced), and is thus pointless.
Does anybody know when the rotation is typically announced? I think I remember it being in June/July some time, but I could be wrong.
if our sets were right in line with the Japanese sets, it would be much easier to call...but being there are no longer two different divisions of The Pokemon Company, and it's all now just TPCi...sources aside, it is known, the business end of the company handles the rotation, and being it's just one company now they want our rotation in line with Japan's...so really it all boils down to whatever they rotate to, so will we
I believe last year's was announced just after Nats...however, Nats was announced much earlier last year, than it was this year...so you might end up having to wait until after Worlds
festizzio said:
Again, if anybody is going to state something major like this, could they please provide a source?
you'd have to get that from a Japanese player or Professor
